"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

Get a quick preview of The New Bodybuilding forOld-School Results. The front and back covers stand tall behind Ellington Darden and his book's 7 parts and 34 chapters.

The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results,Part 1:Tim Patterson and Ellington Darden Discuss Darden's Latest Book

(Tim Patterson is the CEO of T-Nation.com, Biotest Laboratories, and Testosterone Publishing. Ellington Darden is the author of 47 fitness books. Patterson and Darden have been colleagues, business associates, and good friends for more than 20 years. The following discussion recently occurred in Patterson's Colorado Springs headquarters. It is divided into two parts.)

WHERE JONES WENT WRONG

Tim Patterson: Arthur Jones was wrong!

He was wrong in 1980 when he began encouraging bodybuilders to train less than three times per week. How could Arthur have been so right initially — and then manage, a decade later, to screw things up so badly? I'm not sure what he was thinking.

Bulletin No. 1 (1970) was his best work on training, period. If he had taken the major concepts in that publication and concentrated primarily on them thereafter, there'd be a lot less confused HIT enthusiasts today.

After 1983, Arthur seemed to lose interest in bodybuilding. You could see it in the way he dealt with Mike and Ray Mentzer, as well as Boyer Coe. And the fiasco that resulted from the sale of Nautilus, in 1986, didn't help matters. After all that, Arthur rarely talked much about bodybuilding, and instead, focused almost exclusively on his MedX rehab machines.

Ellington Darden: Tim, you may be right. Jones always had a love-hate relationship with bodybuilders and he certainly retreated from supplying the leadership that Mike, Ray, and Boyer needed to succeed at Nautilus.

Patterson: Arthur then confused the bodybuilding world in the late 1980s with his findings from the MedX computerized lumbar-testing machine — which showed for the majority of subjects that one lower-back workout was called for each 14 days. He then assumed that the same requirement held true for other muscle groups, as well as hypertrophy, in general.

At this time the high-intensity kooks got into the picture. For instance — and this is only one example — Mike Mentzer, and his heavy-duty followers, latched onto the decreased-frequency idea and began advocating low-volume routines as infrequently as once every two weeks. Consolidation training, as he called it, became a popular regime among his sect of true believers.

How misleading to think that any serious bodybuilder could make progress training with only three exercises performed once every two weeks. It didn't work — not then, not now, and not in the future.

We know a lot more today about neurophysiology than Arthur knew in the 1970s, when he wrote his first training materials. Had he continued to be involved in a meaningful way, I believe he'd have made different choices. And I certainly believe he'd have taken an alternate route had he known what was going to transpire in the HIT-extremist community. They've all but made a parody of his work.

Darden: You're right, Tim. What else would you add to the list?

Patterson: The super-slow groups, which were an offspring of Arthur's, "If in doubt about your repetition speed, move slower rather than faster," simply added to the confusion of the average bodybuilder. Moving slower, in principle, might be a valuable centering point. But these groups took what amounted to a rehab guideline and turned it into an entire training strategy. Arthur told me on several occasions that they were nothing more than "mental masturbation." I agree.

Darden: Again, that's a keen observation.

WHAT BODYBUILDERS NEED

Patterson: In retrospect, I'm amazed that the huge bodybuilding following that Arthur captured with his "train harder and briefer" philosophy from 1970-1974 is now splintered into dozens of tiny cult-like cells. The collective power that Arthur Jones once had has been lost due to poor leadership, infighting, and lack of interest.

As a consequence, the overall results of the average HIT bodybuilder today are significantly worsethan they were 30 years ago. The physical development of today's average HIT devotee is nowhere close to the average follower in the early 1970s. And there's only one difference — old-school training. It's almost disappeared.

It's as if HIT — the real HIT — has lost its voice. Today, HIT is composed mostly of a bunch of, well . . . sissies — guys who couldn't train hard if their lives depended on it . . . guys who'd rather talk about training than actually workout hard.

If one of these HIT slackers were transported in time back to 1970 for a workout with Arthur Jones, what do you suppose would happen? I'll tell you, and this is no joke: Halfway through his first training session, Jones would kick his futuristic, sissified ass back home.

Is Arthur the only one in history who could get people to listen to reason and inspire them to train correctly? Back then Jones commanded almost everybody's ear in bodybuilding. But why?

Darden:(Smiling and shaking his head) Hey, Tim, I'd be careful about calling all our HIT men sissies . . . but you've certainly made your point. And you ended with a thought-provoking question.

If I had to narrow Arthur's appeal down to one concept, I'd have to say Confidence . . . confidence in your routine. That's what Arthur Jones brought to the bodybuilding world in the 1970s.

Patterson: (Nods his head and motions for me to continue.)

Darden:Belief in what you're doing may be the single most important factor in success . . . and seeing is believing. Jones certainly wrote, talked, and demonstrated that what he was recommending was on-target. He used to say, "Prove it, then talk about it." And that's what he did.

Jones's approach was so compelling, with his story telling from his experiences with aviation, wild animals, fist fighting, movie-making, and wheeling and dealing. No one could make meaningful transitions like Jones could.

Patterson: Yes! I couldn't have said it better. But again, in the 1980s and beyond, Arthur should've remained true to hardcore bodybuilders . . . and kept that "prove it, then talk about it" attitude. Bodybuilders were his bread and butter in the early 1970s . . . and he walked away from them.

In my opinion, Arthur, for giving so much to bodybuilding, has missed a huge opportunity. He underestimated the influence of the bodybuilding world — these are the guys who would have continued his legacy — and instead he wined and dined the medical community. Unfortunately, the medical community wasn't all that interested in what Arthur had to say. And it's certainly not the medical community that will carry on his legacy.

More than ever, Jones's original training ideas — and the self-confidence that they promoted, because they worked — have relevance to bodybuilders today.

Even more relevant . . . someone should advance HIT to where Arthur should've taken it, had he kept his interest in exercise and modern medical science. Just think where HIT would be today if Arthur had stayed actively involved.

Someone needs to do this, Ell. Otherwise, the HIT that you and I know — the real HIT — will be eventually lost forever. To pull it off, all of those splintered forces — such as Heavy Duty, Consolidated, Superslow, Slow Burn, Nautilus, Cybex, IART, HST, Cyberpump, NSCA, NCES, and others — need to be united into one, confident, powerful organization. I think there's a fighting chance, if these individuals are exposed to the truth about HIT. And that starts with a look back to the old school.

Darden:Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I appreciate your convicted straight talk. Those discussion points are some of the reasons that you and I are so enthused about The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results.

It's time for bodybuilders, both young and old, to rediscover the philosophy of Arthur Jones — and the confidence that it brought to those pioneers in the 1970s — and, most importantly, the confidence that it can bring to today's lifters.

JONES'S CURRENT HEALTH

Patterson: Ell, you visited Arthur recently . . . how's his health?

Darden: Yeah, I spent about two hours with him on August 19, 2006. He's not well. He must weigh no more than 140 pounds (down from his normal 170 pounds) and he has four-inches worth of a shaggy gray beard. He looks old and worn out . . . and he won't leave his home. He told me that he doubts he will make it to his next birthday. He'll be 80-years old on November 22nd.

It's really sad, Tim, to see him in such a condition.

Patterson: I wish he'd let us help him . . . you know get him out of his home, maybe nothing more than a drive around central Florida. Why does he want to be such a recluse?

Darden:Arthur is determined to stay at home. He will not even go out his front door and walk 50 feet to his mailbox. Most of the day, he sits on a rundown couch and reads. His youngest son, who lives several miles away, checks on him often and brings him food and does a few things for him. Again, Arthur simply says he tired, worn out. Some of the time, however, his mind is sharp, very sharp — just like he was in the old days. But he fades after an hour or so.

Remember, this is the man who experienced the most action-packed life of any person we've ever known. Arthur's life makes the Crocodile Hunter's adventures look like Eleanor Rigby's. Maybe we should let him finish it . . . HIS WAY. I don't know?

Someone said about ten years ago — after Arthur caught the flu, refused to see a doctor, became very sick for two weeks, and then recovered remarkably — that he was just too tough to die. Let's hope that this is still the case.

I did show him the front and back covers of The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results. He studied each one quietly for about a minute . . . and said nothing. Which as you know, Tim, is his way of saying they're okay. No response from Arthur Jones means YES.

I believe the close-up picture of Arthur on the book's back cover, captures perfectly — Arthur Jones, the teacher — which, in my opinion, was his most important role. From his eyes, you can see and feel . . . his passion for teaching and learning.

He mentioned that he wanted to see a copy of the printed book. I told him I'd bring him one on my next visit.

"Arthur," I said, as I was leaving, "the book is full of the old days and your stories and experiences. And it's loaded with great pictures."

Under his shaggy beard, he smiled . . . ever so slightly . . . which was his way of giving me a bit of encouragement.

Tim, those beginning Nautilus years — the 1970s — with Arthur Jones at his creative best were really extraordinary. There was something exciting to experience almost every day. I sure miss that decade. That's one reason this book is so special.

MUSCLE BEACH: 1940-1950

Patterson: Ell, from the pictures in your book, I can tell that Jones learned a great deal from the Muscle Beach crowd of the 1940s.

Darden:You're right about that. Jones was in Los Angeles in 1947 and 1948, and regularly trained at Vic Tanny's Gym in Santa Monica. Tanny's was a hotbed for bodybuilding and Jones mingled with a lot of the champions, such as George Eiferman, John Farbotnik, and Clancy Ross.

Patterson: Was that where Arthur learned about the advantages of whole-body routines?

Darden:Actually, whole-body routines were the norm before the 1940s. The major weight-training authors — such as Alan Calvert, Mark Berry, George Jowett, Milo Steinborn, Bob Hoffman, Earl Leiderman, and Peary Rader — all espoused exercising the entire body three times per week. Vic Tanny, who promoted the commercial gym business in the 1950s, was also a big proponent of whole-body training.

Jones knew from his gift of common sense that overall-body workouts, compared to split routines, were more effective and efficient.

WHOLE-BODY AND SPLIT ROUTINES

Patterson: That's interesting, because today, the top-rated author's on T-Nation.com have positive feelings about whole-body routines. Both Christian Thibaudeau and Chad Waterbury have huge followings on T-Nation and they're advocates of at least some whole-body training.

Chris Shugart, after reading The New HIT, switched over to a three-days-per-week schedule — with outstanding results. Even Charles Staley, with his Escalating Density Training, sees the benefits behind exercising the entire body during a single workout. And so does Alwyn Cosgrove in his recent routines.

Darden: Joe Weider's magazine writers promoted split routines during the 1960s and 1970s to pump up the sales of his products. It was the idea that more exercise and more time in the gym require more calories and more of Weider's "special" food supplements. And of course, with the advent of steroids, guys started getting results, in spite of their exercising and eating.

I want to bring back the time when strong men weren't controlled by steroids . . . a time when men cared about their health, as well as appearance. And I think we've taken a major step in the right direction with The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results.

Arthur Jones, the ultimate old-school taskmaster, said it best:

I cannot provide an exact formula for success, but I can furnish a formula for failure. Give bodybuilders what they want: easier, longer, more frequent . . . exercise.

Instead, I supply bodybuilders with what they need: harder, briefer, more infrequent . . . exercise.

Patterson: Arthur could really nail those quotes, couldn't he? Since the layout of your book was done at the T-Nation headquarters in Colorado Springs, I've seen all of it — and I can honestly say, it's unique and different from any other bodybuilding book on the market. What exactly were your intentions when you started this project?

MEMORIES WORTH SAVING

Darden: Like most book projects, you start off being scattered and then you begin to get more precise as the writing progresses. At first, I intended to do Volume 2 of The New HIT. Then, with your help, the project evolved to a broader concept, The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results. I decided to explore more of the roots of modern bodybuilding, which started during the 1940s and 1950s, primarily in Santa Monica, California: at Muscle Beach and Vic Tanny's Gym.

I learned a great deal from talking with Ben Sorenson, who ran the day-to-day operations for Tanny from 1947 to 1949. His memory of those old days was fantastic. Plus, Ben had dealings with all the greats: John Grimek, Steve Reeves (he actually shared an apartment with him for several months), George Eiferman, John Davis, Marvin Eder, Joe Gold, and Eric Pedersen — just to name a few.

During the last several years of Vic Tanny's life (he died in 1985), I spent hours and hours talking about the Muscle Beach days with him. He was a storehouse of stories and information about the inside workings of the bodybuilding business.

Tanny also had a lot of old pictures that he gave me. And I have an extensive photo collection that I've accumulated over the many years — before my Nautilus days, during those exciting times with Arthur Jones and Casey Viator, and from the previous books I've done with Chris Lund. Chris Lund, originally from England, is the best bodybuilding photographer I've ever been associated with and his photos always have a unique point-of-focus to them.

Patterson: So, you've combined these old photos with your new-style approach to bodybuilding, is that right?

Darden: To a degree. But more specifically, the old photos are combined with the lost techniques of the masters, plus the best of today's science . . . to create The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results.

Next week, Darden and Patterson get into the nitty-gritty of the new book and then outline a special, pre-publication offer.

Wolfie wrote:
Ummm..okay. So Arthur Jones' recommendation of 2 full-body workouts a week is now bunk? And that same recommendation from "The New HIT"?

And if Mr. Jones ever said anything about any other muscle group other than the lumbar group being trained once every two weeks, then I must have missed it.

Remember, that's Tim Patterson's take on where Jones went wrong. But there's a lot of truth to what he's saying.

I usually start bodybuilders (even advanced men) on three workouts per week, when I personally train them. I like to see their form, intensity, and progression for at least two weeks, or sometimes even six weeks . . . before I cut back on the duration and frequency.

"Exercise for the purpose of increasing function, strength and muscular endurance, should never be performed more than three times weekly, and better results will sometimes be produced by only two weekly exercises, or even one." p. 43

"Testing Recovery and Ability: Some few subjects will not make gains in strength if exercised more frequently than once every third week. And subjects that do beston a schedule of one exercise every second week are common; are usually subjects with a high percentage of fast-twitch fibers." (p. 55)

Now, this comes from Arthur's rehab book on the lumbar spine. It not only is specific to the spine (and for specific reasons I won't go into), but the infrequency is very particular to FT fibers. I would like to read a quote anywhere where Arthur states otherwise about other body parts... something that is not misinterpreted by those who like to think what they want to think.

As well, in regard to the IART and others getting along, for the past decade I have done my best to work with Winett, Mannie, Brzycki and others. I talk to these people and sometimes they write for our organization, but to go beyond this point is very difficult... they are not interested (busy lives, long hours at work, etc). I've had some of the other organizations/people make claims about what the IART stands for but, of course, not quote anything and misrepresent what we say. I tried to promote and work with Cyberpump, but they're not interested and the person who runs the site has sent me nasy e-mails that I have kept on file.

And then you have a person who runs a thick-bar/fractional plate company who talked down about us while we were providing free advertising for this company in a gloss magazine on newsstands. Go figure. I think I will stick to my own agenda.

Patterson nailed it on the head for me. I have read so many HIT books and articles it's pathetic. A lot of these HIT items promote split routines and consolidation to some degree and are supposedly the latest and greatest in scientific research.

I always ended up going back to the Nautilus Bulletins and getting my best results. Thanks Darden and Tim for recognizing that the old schoolers got better results, drug free than 99% of the trainees today. You'll get my money that's for sure.

I made the best gains in years after switching from SuperSlow to a more "old school" HIT routine after talking with Dr. Darden about the book around the time it came out. I was training three times per week at the time.

However, recovery ability does vary between individuals, and with age, and nobody should automatically assume that a particular frequency of training will work well for them.

I do agree 100% with Tim about most HITers not really training that hard though. They might train harder than the high volume crowd, but most still have no clue what a truly hard workout is.

I believe you are the only person who can unite the HIT crowd. You have the knowledge, people skills, and perseverence for it. AJ is passing the torch to you and some may not like it but you'll treat them well and win them over in spite of it all.

We will always have splinter groups. We need them because Jones needs to be challenged and I'm hoping to see you doing more of that as well. After all, he wasn't God! (at least I think he denied it to Mike).

Let's make sure our umbrella is large enough so that all hard trainers can come here and exchange ideas and challenge us as we challenge ourselves in the gym.
Jeff

I hope the book gets into telling us what we are doing wrong. I do agree that most simply cannot train as hard as they should. I have recently come across one trainee who after 8 weeks of training, twice a week has increased his body weight by 17 pounds and with more definition.

This includes 3 inches on his chest and over an inch on each arm. He trains with an intensity that has to be seen to be appreciated and this is why I believe his results are so good.

With this being said though I would like to know what needs to be improved. Bulletin 1 says alot of things that aren't commonly accepted now. 2 sets for alot of exercises instead of 1 comes to mind.

I am not here to argue that AJ didn't push people to there limits and was extremely good at it, but I find it hard to accept that a man that was so smart just started getting it wrong. His work seems to have a natural progression that makes sense.

I even see how mentzer consolidation routine would work, however i think the flaw is mostly human. I don't think any of us are capable of performing at a level of intensity that would warrent 3 exercises every 2 weeks. It may not be humanly possible.

Going back to 3 times a week and possibly 2 sets per set seems to like a step away from intensity. I cannot gain strength if i train 3x a week unless I include NTF days on a regular basis.

I have every plan on buying this book, but to make a claim like AJ started doing it wrong and that all of us are sissies, this book now has to move us in the proper direction. I truly hope that it does this.

Fianlly the idea of making all these organizations that promote HIT into one would be great, however I think there are now to many opinions for this to happen. Just look at the fighting on this boared. Maybe a goal we can strive towards though.

"Exercise for the purpose of increasing function, strength and muscular endurance, should never be performed more than three times weekly, and better results will sometimes be produced by only two weekly exercises, or even one." p. 43

"Testing Recovery and Ability: Some few subjects will not make gains in strength if exercised more frequently than once every third week. And subjects that do beston a schedule of one exercise every second week are common; are usually subjects with a high percentage of fast-twitch fibers." (p. 55)

Now, this comes from Arthur's rehab book on the lumbar spine. It not only is specific to the spine (and for specific reasons I won't go into), but the infrequency is very particular to FT fibers. I would like to read a quote anywhere where Arthur states otherwise about other body parts... something that is not misinterpreted by those who like to think what they want to think.

As well, in regard to the IART and others getting along, for the past decade I have done my best to work with Winett, Mannie, Brzycki and others. I talk to these people and sometimes they write for our organization, but to go beyond this point is very difficult... they are not interested (busy lives, long hours at work, etc). I've had some of the other organizations/people make claims about what the IART stands for but, of course, not quote anything and misrepresent what we say. I tried to promote and work with Cyberpump, but they're not interested and the person who runs the site has sent me nasy e-mails that I have kept on file.

And then you have a person who runs a thick-bar/fractional plate company who talked down about us while we were providing free advertising for this company in a gloss magazine on newsstands. Go figure. I think I will stick to my own agenda.

WTF!?

This is about Dr. Darden's new book, not your ego man. Go tell it somewhere else.

"Exercise for the purpose of increasing function, strength and muscular endurance, should never be performed more than three times weekly, and better results will sometimes be produced by only two weekly exercises, or even one." p. 43

"Testing Recovery and Ability: Some few subjects will not make gains in strength if exercised more frequently than once every third week. And subjects that do beston a schedule of one exercise every second week are common; are usually subjects with a high percentage of fast-twitch fibers." (p. 55)

Now, this comes from Arthur's rehab book on the lumbar spine. It not only is specific to the spine (and for specific reasons I won't go into), but the infrequency is very particular to FT fibers. I would like to read a quote anywhere where Arthur states otherwise about other body parts... something that is not misinterpreted by those who like to think what they want to think.

From your AJ Collection / My first half century series/ p.740

"...by 1970, i clearly understood that best results from exercise were usually produced by only one set of each exercise. In 1986, i had learned that only two weekly workouts were usually better than three weekly workouts. Now, ten years later, in 1996, i know that only one weekly workout is required by most subjects, and that some people do better with a schedule of only one workout every two weeks, and that a few people do best on a schedule of one workout every three weeks."

I spoke to Arthur about that and he clarified that he was talking about the low back, although that article made it sound like training in general.

In regard to his comparison of strength changes made between the various research he mentioned and the West Point Study, as you likely know, strength increases were big with the West Point Study, but ON AVERAGE, the cadets LOST lean mass!!!!!

By now you would think that peope would make the connection that a person can get stronger without adding any or little muscle (and in some cases, several thousand percent stronger, as per Mullen's recent research project) due to neurological and coordinated factors, not to mention energy transfer from one link to another.

Cherry: Not sure where you think my ego comes into this, although you certainly have one (you like to see your words on this board). Something very specific was mentioned about the HIT organizations working together, and that included a reference to the I.A.R.T.

Since I'm the President of the I.A.R.T., I responded with my experience in trying to work together. Perhaps you should read the original article again, since my response was relative to what was posted. Thank you.

Folks,
HIT guys are "sissies", we need to work out more.. Forget science and genetics.
No wonder AJ left the bodybuilding world. It is a bizzarre activity, not oriented toward health and function.

No wonder the "funtional fitness"
movement is taking off. The bb "trainers" at the gym I go to are huge, but couldn't pass a military pt test if their life depended on it. I'm not impressed. I'm pretty convinced AJ was right, that whatever a bodybuilder says, you should do the opposite.

I spoke to Arthur about that and he clarified that he was talking about the low back, although that article made it sound like training in general.

In regard to his comparison of strength changes made between the various research he mentioned and the West Point Study, as you likely know, strength increases were big with the West Point Study, but ON AVERAGE, the cadets LOST lean mass!!!!!

Since I'm the President of the I.A.R.T., I responded with my experience in trying to work together. Perhaps you should read the original article again, since my response was relative to what was posted. Thank you.

lol This is about Dr.Dardens new book not your issue of promoting your IART!

My statement stands... if someone is going to mention our organization and make suggestions, which have been attempted, then I will respond to clear the air. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

Henry:

My information came directly from the research paper on the West Point Study, as printed in The Athletic Journal.

The average lean mass at the beginning and end of the project among the participating cadets reduced by 1.86 pounds. Even considering a possible margin for error in body composition testing, they certainly did not put on a lot of mass relative to the changes made in lifting proficiency, cardio, etc., which is no big surprise... often when one attempts to optimize one system, another will suffer, and that holds true when a person's objective is on how much is lifted for 'x' reps rather than how a muscle is trained to achieve optimum growth.

Why do you think Dr. Darden has introduced so many set variables and specialization methods in his books over and above basic hard lifting for a few sets per muscle?

Considering the duration of the study, it wouldn't be surprising if much of the improvements were due to neural adaptations. This doesn't in any way support the contention that one shouldn't train for strength to become larger.

After training all the cadets and examining their before-and-after measurements and photographs, it was obviouis to Jones and me that the cadets did gain significant lean-body mass. The meausrements for lean-body mass had to be off.

Jones and I both thought some of the problem was related to the fact that different sets of people -- in the lean-body mass area -- performed the pre and post tests.

All of this testing was done at the University of Rochester's School of Medicine. The final measurements were performed just after spring graduation and a new group of graduate students did them.

Once the data were collected, we had to live with the findings . . . and that was the way they were reported.

Who is right? Who is wrong? Who cares?
The only thing that matters is RESULTS!

Routines! Myriads and myriads of routines! The perfect routine! Wow!

A bad routine with hard work is better than a perfect routine going through the motions. You must have confidence in your personal routine to work at the proper intensity.

I asked for a HIT group over a year ago on this forum. HiTers have a lack of camaraderie.

Who are these "most Hiters" that do not train hard? Has an objective observation been made to determine that these so-called "most HiTers" are not training hard? Otherwise, this is just more inflammatory talk that HiTers are famous for!

Arthur Jones had results in his earlier days, now on the other hand, where are the HiT results today? If all of you HiT trainers out there are so darn good, where are your results. If I trained folks for a living, I would have a prime exampe to prove what my version of HiT could accomplish.

Didn't Jones mention, in a personal conversation with you, that he would only train twice per week if he could go back?

I do think that there is something special about training three times per week but I'm not sure that any bodypart needs to be hit more than once. I'm speaking of an advanced trainee. Perhaps we could do some research, Dr. D. I know it costs money but I'd give and perhaps others would also.

I run my own business but also make it down to Florida often enough as my kids now seem to live at Disney. I would offer my time as well. Just some thoughts.

As a side note: There are certain trolls here who pollute every thread with snide comments and innuendo. Listen to your mothers: "If you guys can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

I was wondering what Tim's stance and opinions on training is today? I make a point to read Chris Shugart's T-Nation blog regulary because he is a great writer but also because he likes to experiment with new training ideas and different exercise approaches (the man went to a spinning and cardio pump class for research for his articles, that's dedication!).

I was surprised to hear Tim's conversation with Chris talking about how almost all natural trainees who are heavily muscled adopt a very similar program of whole body routines, three times per week and with an average of two very hard sets per exercise. This makes sense coming from a former Nautilus employee but, in an article he wrote a year earlier he outlined his training routine which consisted of five workouts per week on a three our four way split and making an emphasis that going to failure was not necessary. Regardless of his opinion the picture he posted was impressive and he sounds like a very smart guy (his creatine product and protein shakes are the best in my opinion). I would be interested in hearing what he thinks produces the best results. Whole body or split training, and is failure necessary?

I personally think his advice to Chris on training full body was spot on. I noticed that I get better results on full body routines three times per week, I pick one exercise per body part and do two sets with the last being to failure. Works for me, also tell Tim he did a good job with that Fahrenheit supplement commercial. Nice to see you two working together again. Peace.

Who are these "most Hiters" that do not train hard? Has an objective observation been made to determine that these so-called "most HiTers" are not training hard? Otherwise, this is just more inflammatory talk that HiTers are famous for!

This is based on my own observation of workouts by other HITers and discussions with a large number of HIT instructors who have said almost everyone that comes to them claiming to be a HITer still isn't really training as hard as they could.

It's not that most aren't training "hard", they're just not training as hard as they think they are.